IDiot Logic on Display at Uncommon Descent

This time he's responding to someone who challenges the ability of Intelligent Design Creationism to make a contribution to medical science.

Never fear, GilDodgen is always ready to lower himself to the occasion,

Here’s a prediction and a potential medical application from ID theory: Design a chemical or protein which would require a triple CCC to defeat its toxic effects on a bacterium, and it will exhaust the probabilistic resources of blind-watchmaker mechanisms to counteract the toxic effects.

Such a success could and will only come from engineering and reverse-engineering efforts, not from Darwinian theory.

You have to wonder whether some of these IDiots are mentally challenged. This is so not a prediction of Intelligent Design Creationism. Here's the real prediction ...

Scientists have known for some time that evolution is limited by the availability of useful mutations. Some evolutionary biologists have even proposed mutationism to describe the fact that evolution may be much more dependent on mutations than most people realize [Evolution by Accident]. One of the possible ways in which evolution could be limited is if a beneficial allele could only arise when three or four mutations must happen simultaneously. (This is what GilDodgen means by a "triple CCC.") This conclusion comes directly from an understanding of genetics, population genetics, and evolution.

Thus, real scientists would predict that you could design an effective antibiotic if you knew that the only way to develop resistance would be via a highly improbable event. This is a conclusion that's based entirely on an understanding of evolution and how it works. Scientists would love to be able to do this but, unfortunately, they don't know all possible ways that bacteria could develop resistance. Evolution is very unpredictable.

Intelligent Design Creationism, on the other hand predicts the exact opposite of what scientists would predict. According to Michael Behe in The Edge of Evolution the Intelligent Designer will frequently design things that are impossible to evolve. Specifically, according to Behe, we often see things in nature that are so improbable that the required mutations could never have occurred in the lifetime of the planet. The fact that we see these things means that Intelligent Design Creationism is true.

Thus, Intelligent Design Creationists predict that no matter what kind of drug we create, the bacteria will always be able to overcome it because the Intelligent Designer isn't bound by the naturalistic rules of mutation and evolution. God can always step in and create the right series of mutations no matter how improbable they might be by natural causes.

It's a waste of time for humans to try and second guess God by creating very sophisticated drugs because God is omnipotent and he will always defeat us if he chooses. This is the exact opposite of the prediction that GilDodgen seems to be making.

17 comments
:

Larry wrote:"Scientists have known for some time that evolution is limited by the availability of useful mutations."

You've commented before that macroevolution (speciation) is probably through another mechanism besides just accumulative microevolutionary changes. The above quote seems to suggest that macroevolution is just that.

On the subject of mutationism, have you read Nei's latest? He says that his work in the 80s you refer to in your essay was theoretically interesting, but lacked support. Now, he believes, such support exists. It's summarised in this paper:

"The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution"

Free on his website:

http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Nei/Lab/2007-NEI.pdf

He also has some informal musings on the subject that I thought were interesting:

It's very easy to read Uncommon Descent or O'Leary's blogs (although much less so since her science knowledge is obviously that of an amateur) and be taken in by the pseudo-scientific gobbledly-gook writing - particularly for those of us who have very little professional scientific training (especially in the field of biochemistry).

Since UD or O'Leary do not usually entertain any real objective criticism of their posts, I think you are providing a great service in dismantling their shoddy ideas and exposing them for what they really are. Keep it up, thanks!

Don, my reference to the limitations of variability don't have anything to do with macroevolution.

I was simply referring to the fact that you can't select for a beneficial allele until that allele is created. Some potential benefits just aren't possible—for example, we aren't about to acquire the ability to make vitamin C because the number of specific mutations needed is too high.

I still get that feeling of unease when I hear about this sort of thing. My own guess is that the theory of evolutionary mechanism is not yet robust enough to absolutely refute this ‘tripleCCC’ contention. Evolutionists and ID aficionados repeatedly clash over a question that in the abstract is always the same question about the efficacy of evolutionary mechanisms; Namely a) Are the regions of structural stability in morphospace sufficiently connected and b) are the molecular shufflings required by evolution of sufficiently ‘high temperature’, to provide a realistic probability for the evolution of known biological structures given the size of the cosmos?

The open-ended heterogenony of morphospace, and the fact that morphology is coupled to environment (and visa versa), makes the analytical handling of these sorts of questions extremely difficult.

However, given the paleontological evidence in favor of evolution and taking a cue from Fred Hoyle’s guess that a carbon resonance must exist because carbon based life actually exists, then perhaps we can anticipate that some progress can be made on the highly theoretical question posed above.

However, given the paleontological evidence in favor of evolution and taking a cue from Fred Hoyle’s guess that a carbon resonance must exist because carbon based life actually exists, then perhaps we can anticipate that some progress can be made on the highly theoretical question posed above.

Is this the right way to proceed? For example, since Behe accepts common descent I'm going to assume that he doesn't have much of a problem with the fossil evidence*. He accepts the fact of evolution, he just doesn't accept the theory. Therefore, he might say that the fossil record of tetrapod evolution is fine but, loosely speaking, the mechanism to get the large leap from Eusthenopteron to Ichthyostega was Godly mutations (or whatever, since he doesn't actually bother to provide a mechanism).

So, if I'm right about the above, Behe would say that palaeontological evidence is not relevant to his case. You have to deal with the CCC reasoning purely on its own merits. On the other hand, I could be talking complete bollocks.

* Two slight caveats here; firstly I haven't read the book, so I can't be sure about this. Secondly, he did criticise the whale transitional series a few years back, so I can't be sure about my point.

My own guess is that the theory of evolutionary mechanism is not yet robust enough to absolutely refute this ‘tripleCCC’ contention.

Evolutionary biologists have no intention of refuting the "tripleCCC" hypothesis. It's based on evolutionary biology and it is correct. If evolution requires the simultaneous occurrence of three separate mutations then it's never going to happen.

He (Behee) accepts the fact of evolution, he just doesn't accept the theory.

Thanks for pointing that out SteveF – I’m not at all familiar with Behee’s view on the fossil record. (Now you’ve pointed it out, I really need to get up to speed on that one) I’m only familiar with his notion of irreducible complexity. What you seem to be saying is that Behee sees the mechanism of evolution as including points in the history of life where ‘quantum leaps’ in design are made by intelligence. Presumably he would see this as one way of ‘making sense’ of the ‘lumpiness’ of the fossil record. I guess he doesn’t have any theory as to when and why these design jumps occur. Perhaps I shouldn’t try to second-guess him; I need to go the ‘horses mouth’ as they say. Does Lee Merrill have any insight here or references?

If evolution requires the simultaneous occurrence of three separate mutations then it’s never going to happen

So I infer that you’re saying that the occurrence of mutations 1, 2 , 3 are separated by large tracts of time. It follows, then, that these mutations individually have the structural stability (in relation to their environment) to persist through a long enough window of time for them to have a realistic probability of assignation with the next mutation in the sequence.

You are effectively implying, then, that there is a stable incremental route through to the triple combination. This comes under my question ‘a’ Are the regions of structural stability in morphospace sufficiently connected? That is, for evolution to work there have to be ‘contours of stability’ running through morphospace enabling ‘evolutionary diffusion’ to diffuse along them.

What I am trying to do here is to construct some abstractions and categories that boil the ID-evolutionist debate down to its conceptual kernal. My observation is that on an abstract level there are ‘isomorphisms’ between Behee’s ‘irreducible complexity’, GilDodgen’s ‘tripleCCC’ contention and Kirk Durston’s isolated protein fold regions. In each case there seems to be an implicit denial by these ‘theorists’ that the requisite ‘contour lines of stability’ exist. Yes we might usefully and successfully theorize that these contour lines exist, but is there room for a reasonable doubt thereby allowing the ‘IDiots’ some purchase for their implicit contention that the said lines don’t exist?

My observation is that on an abstract level there are ‘isomorphisms’ between Behee’s ‘irreducible complexity’, GilDodgen’s ‘tripleCCC’ contention and Kirk Durston’s isolated protein fold regions.

Yes, there are similarities. All three are attempting to find proof that evolution can't happen. So far none of them have come up with a single example that doesn't have a plausible evolutionary explanation.

Behe's CC mutation is theoretically an edge of evolution as I stated earlier. Unfortunately, the examples he used have been shown to be incorrect.

Durston's examples are all meaningless. He hasn't demonstrated that protein folds are separated by uncrossible chasms and there's no reason to assume that he ever will. It doesn't make sense.

In each case there seems to be an implicit denial by these ‘theorists’ that the requisite ‘contour lines of stability’ exist. Yes we might usefully and successfully theorize that these contour lines exist, but is there room for a reasonable doubt thereby allowing the ‘IDiots’ some purchase for their implicit contention that the said lines don’t exist?

No, I don't think there's room for "reasonable" doubt. The IDiots have already decided the right answer to their questions. Now they're just looking for post hoc ways to justify their answer. That's not how science is done.

I agree that the argument (as given) does not make much sense. If the bacteria were to acquire resistance via an evolutionarily "impossible" change (as some have labeled it), then this would count against evolution as the source of bacterial resistance. But if they don't, it proves nothing.

However, before you all go sticking your necks out too far on this, it might be helpful to inject a few facts about mutation and the occurrence of apparent multiple changes in evolution.

Changes that would seem to depend on tandem double and triple nucleotide substitution mutations happen far more frequently in evolution than one would expect from the theory that they emerge via independent single-nucleotide mutations (Whelan & Goldman, 2004; Averof, et al., 2000; others).

This is generally considered an anomaly rather than a gift from God. The anomaly has not been resolved completely, and may involve some complications of population genetics and selection, but part of the resolution is surely that tandem double and triple nucleotide mutations occur FAR more frequently than expected from the independent occurrence of single nucleotide mutations.

Mutation researchers have known about this for many years. For an entrez into the literature, see Ikehata, et al., 2007, "A model for triplet mutation formation based on error-prone translesional DNA synthesis opposite UV photolesions" (DNA Repair 6: 658).

It is often stated that intelligent design demands a Creator.What if organisms could evolve in Darwinian style - for a time, and then develop an internal binary biological computer - simple at first.•This would permit the assembling of complex systems by the use of objects.•This would explain sudden rushes of evolution as happened in the Devonian Explosion.There might just be more to Darwinism than we think.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.